Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
XenoFish

Science vs. Religion

675 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Rlyeh
1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

No, most spiritual beliefs can neither be proved nor disproved by science of today.

Many can be disproven.

 

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

No, by scientism I mean:

Per Dictionary: Scientism: excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

Or per Wikipedia: Scientism is the promotion of science as the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values. The term scientism is generally used critically, implying a cosmetic application of science in unwarranted situations considered not amenable to application of the scientific method or similar scientific standards.

That's not how you have used it.  Scientism has been brought up when the spiritual explanation is incompatible with the scientific.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

Scientism is almost used as an insult. Typically used by believers who do not agree with being proven wrong. 

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
docyabut2

Remember watching a debate on, science vs religion years ago on c pam and religion won!  wish I could find that again  it was a good debate

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
onlookerofmayhem
1 minute ago, XenoFish said:

Scientism is almost used as an insult. Typically used by believers who do not agree with being proven wrong. 

It is most definitely being used as an insult.

It is one of the last bastions of believers of the supernatural who has absolutely zero empirical evidence for their claims. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
1 minute ago, Rlyeh said:

Many can be disproven.

 

That's not how you have used it.  Scientism has been brought up when the spiritual explanation is incompatible with the scientific.

None of my spiritual beliefs can be disproven nor are incompatible with science.

I said in my first post there can be bad religion in denying scientific findings but I am arguing only for modern enlightened religious/spiritual beliefs. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

I can fully see psychology leading to support of spiritual and religious thought. However in regards to such things as miracles, like walking on water, transmuting water into wine, or cursing a tree and finding it dead. It's the miracles that create a divide. Then you have various spiritual doctrine that claim various planes of existence. It's easy (from a psychological perspective) to see the physical, mental, and emotional plane. That's easy. It's the spiritual plane that's tricky.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
2 hours ago, lightly said:

Science is the study of the physical workings of nature...  These laws ,for now, function the way they do...whether naturally occurring or divinely designed.  

Most religious believers acknowledge science simply as a study and recording of physical data. .and so, in many,  faith and science can peacefully coexist.

Many simply ignore the contradictions.  If ignorance or denial is peaceful coexistence then we can declare world peace just by ignoring all conflict.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
2 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

It is most definitely being used as an insult.

It is one of the last bastions of believers of the supernatural who has absolutely zero empirical evidence for their claims. 

I've seen it tossed around a lot over the years. Mostly from George. A lot of the time I feel it's an anti-science tactic. If someone goes to a lab and under very strict and controlled conditions summons a spirit or demon. And this experiment can be repeated and validated under even more strict conditions, then yeah, that would be something. But in regards to "evidence" of the paranormal or religious events all we have are subjective experiences. Even the euphoria experienced by believers is a neurochemical reaction. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
4 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I said in my first post there can be bad religion in denying scientific findings but I am arguing only for modern enlightened religious/spiritual beliefs. 

Why is that bad religion?  Religion doesn't abide by the scientific method.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
docyabut2
14 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

I can fully see psychology leading to support of spiritual and religious thought. However in regards to such things as miracles, like walking on water, transmuting water into wine, or cursing a tree and finding it dead. It's the miracles that create a divide. Then you have various spiritual doctrine that claim various planes of existence. It's easy (from a psychological perspective) to see the physical, mental, and emotional plane. That's easy. It's the spiritual plane that's tricky.

many Jesus `s miracles can be proven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
Just now, docyabut2 said:

many Jesus `s miracles can be proven

Hahaha.  Jesus can't even be proven.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
1 minute ago, docyabut2 said:

many Jesus `s miracles can be proven

Prove it then.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
17 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Where am I expressing that?  The point that you ignored:

"Given that Christians believe you get one life here and then your soul dwells in a different realm after death, and Hindus teach instead that we are reincarnated in different forms repeatedly, what can we in our more enlightened age learn from both since they conflict?  They aren't both right, so is it that one of them is right or neither of them is right, and to your original point, which one is allowing us to 'learn about reality'?"

...has nothing to do with science or scientism, it has to do with simple logic.  We hopefully already agree that fundamentalism is bad, so what's 'bad' about scientism?  Scientism ever result in terrorist attacks, systemic bigotry, etc?  Did excessive devotion to science obstruct or delay the realization of spiritual truths sometime in human history?  Because vice versa, there sure was obstruction.  I don't agree that science the "only" way to determine objective truths, but it is clearly the best; there's hardly a second place worth mentioning, it's no contest.  

 

I am not arguing that everything religion has ever said is correct. I was critical of fundamentalist thinking as an example. I am arguing that there can be enlightened forms of religion/spirituality that do not conflict with science and can tell us of reality beyond the reach of the physical senses.

22 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

 

It is actually true that they can't be studied at all.  Feel free to lay out how exactly you study the spiritual planes and most importantly, what decades if not centuries of this supposed 'study' has verified and shown to be true.  

Spiritual planes can be studied by those gifted in clairvoyant/psychic insights beyond the physical senses. They are studied through direct observation of many masters of the wisdom traditions I respect. And I already stated that these things can not be proven to others at the level of the physical senses. That does not make these things that I respect from Vedic and Theosophical sources 'not real'. One thing a psychically non-gifted person like myself can say is that much of the numerous types of claimed paranormal experiences would be part and parcel of this expanded understanding of reality. That is evidence too (not proof).

34 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Funny how psychic gifts vanish as soon as you get someone who is competent and unbiased to evaluate them.  

I consider that statement false propaganda by the pseudo-skeptic camp. We irreconcilably disagree on the quality of  the evidence and there is not much to gain in renewing that argument.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Many simply ignore the contradictions.  If ignorance or denial is peaceful coexistence then we can declare world peace just by ignoring all conflict.

Good religious/spiritual thinking does not in the end have contradictions. Again I am not arguing that everything ever said by religion is correct. I am just arguing that a sensible enlightened religion/spirituality can be adopted that is not in conflict with science.

Edited by papageorge1
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
26 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Why is that bad religion?  Religion doesn't abide by the scientific method.

My school of thought is that truth/religion/spirituality can not be in opposition to what science has proven. But I also hold that religion/spirituality can delve into areas that are not amenable to the scientific method.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
docyabut2

Sorry all but Science vs. Religion is all true, but  they are the same :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
docyabut2
30 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Prove it then.

proved it

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stiff
8 minutes ago, docyabut2 said:

proved it

tenor.gif

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
10 minutes ago, docyabut2 said:

proved it

Bless your heart.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
28 minutes ago, docyabut2 said:

Sorry all but Science vs. Religion is all true, but  they are the same :)

No, they’re not and because you say so isn’t proof of anything. 
 

cormac

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

My school of thought is that truth/religion/spirituality can not be in opposition to what science has proven. But I also hold that religion/spirituality can delve into areas that are not amenable to the scientific method.

If they’re not amenable to the scientific method then there is no way to prove they’re real, which leaves them as a matter of personal interpretation/belief and not fact. 
 

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WanderingFool0

What a potentially interesting and productive topic and discussion @XenoFish.

Unfortunately, I think that the choice of words has limited it's potentiality to be productive and maybe limited this thread to a series of continuous possibly argumentative back and forth swipes between the members of this forum.

Now if that is what you were going for I say carry on. I do think there is a greater possibly productive discussion at the root of your question and I am not trying to derail your thread, but, possibly re-frame it just slightly for a moment at least as long as this post. I will of course answer the original question of Science vs Religion, but I would also like to add in my argument for Science not vs but working with Philosophy and bringing them back together for the good of society and the individual disciplines.

Now as far as the question of Science vs Religion, I would say of course we should never bring them together, nor can they be brought together, as long as the religions remain dead systems, devoid of their original intent and I would say Spirit.

Almost all of the religions do not begin as they are now, hollow systems of organization, control and outward institutions, full of aped rituals and rigid dogma, but almost all of them can be traced in their root right back to the work and treatises of early spiritual and metaphysical philosophers or a philosopher. As, a couple of examples, I would use Toaism which can be traced to the two treatises and the philosophical work of Lao Tzu and Buddhism which is traced back to the early teachings and philosophical work of the Guatama Buddha. I would make the same arguments for the three Abrahamic religions as well, which all started with the teachings and philosophical work of various ancient spiritual/metaphysical philosophers, which the figure of Jesus at the very least symbolic represents in the Christian Religion. I do think that if religions were returned to those philosophical roots and once again became living evolving systems and thus, were able to shed the chains of ritual and dogma, they may collectively as whole not only co exist but, even possibly enhance science.

Now having answered the question of Religion, I beg your permission to shift the frame just a bit to also answer the question of Science vs/and Philosophy, because there are some things that I feel need to be said in this post modern age about Philosophy and Metaphysical Philosophy and it's current fallen state and general disdain for them by much of society and even the hard sciences.

Now, I will admit and you of course know, since we discussed my stance before, that I am a lay metaphysical philosopher at my heart and though I have no formal philosophical training, education or degrees, I would still consider myself a philosopher. One very much a kindred spirit to Heraclitus, the Obscure, not necessarily in philosophy, but in nature and temperament. He too claimed to be completely self taught and educated; arriving at most of his views on philosophy from questioning and debating himself. So, they are many other members of this board who are more formerly educated in philosophy and for whom I have great respect, may disagree with what I am about to say, but it is the way I see it as a lay philosopher.

I will also say that I was born in the mid seventies and thus, my viewpoint is framed from that perspective. Now, by looking at the world I have grown up and lived in and the history that stretches from before my birth, I have noticed a major shift that happened in the sixties in society that created a fundamental shift in the view and place of Religion, Philosophy and Science in the modern world. Of course the much famous and repeated proclamation and quote from the sixties that God is dead. I think unfortunately, that along with that proclamation, society not only threw out the bathwater of God, but it seems the baby of philosophy as well and proclaimed the hard sciences the only Gods in the land and that there is no Gods before them.

Just, from observing the lack of reverence payed to and the paltry role assigned to philosophy in the modern world and society now, I can not see how anyone else, could not agree that philosophy has been despoiled and devalued in society today. If I had gotten a formal higher education and even a masters in philosophy, if I were lucky I could find one of the limited positions as a professor of philosophy and make a living. If I also had a keen wit, a creative mind and command of the English language, I might be able to find one of the limited creative jobs such as writing movies and fiction and make a decent living. But, outside of those limited avenues there is very little place for a philosopher in the world today, though some like me find mental stimulation and entertainment in the modern day Greek forums of the internet, where ideas and the systems of ideas can still be discussed, debated, weighed and judged.

In my long time of visiting the internet and talking to people, I tend to have found that, many good and intelligent people from the hard sciences background, often have a dismissive and disdainful view of philosophy as being somehow less than and even less rigid than the hard sciences. I would have to disagree with that. Going back to the classical philosophy of both the west and of the east, they originally were rooted squarely in the laws of logic and reason and their ideas and systems of ideas; which in the Greek days were also called theorems, were rigorously weighed and judged using logic and reason and tested with experiments of thought and debate.

I would say the only real difference between philosophy; the study of ideas and science; the study of things; which I would add also once belonged to philosophy, is that with the hard sciences there are physical experiments which can be performed and used to test their theorems. Philosophy on the other hand being the science of the study of ideas, can not rely on physical experimentation, but must use experiments of logic, reason and debate. I would say despite that differentiation, it doesn't render properly practiced philosophy to be a of a lesser nature than hard science, just a different nature and no less valuable to society well.

Now, I would also like to add, that from philosophy arises the philosophical theorems and systems of ideas we call ethics and morals. And, though I know the Nazi's are much overused on the internet for comparisons, but I can not think of another nation that could serve as an example, but we saw in Nazi Germany a disturbing fact and that is that science when unfettered from the philosophy of morals and ethics, though it causes much harm and destruction, it actually advances faster and more efficiently without those fetters. One could argue that the only thing keeping all the societies and nations of the earth from unfettering their sciences as well, is the bulwark of philosophy and those pesky morals and ethics. For that alone, philosophy should always have a prized status in society. And I think this example illustrates an old lesson of philosophy, which is the difference between knowledge and wisdom. Science much like Knowledge only concerns itself with what humans are capable of doing. Philosophy like Wisdom is concerned with what humans should and should not be doing. Both are equally as important and when yoked together, great things can be done for society and the state.

I would also argue that Philosophy and it's study of ideas, has even greater value than just morals and ethics if it were restored/reformed and re-coupled with science in a new synergistic manner and I think that once it were done, we may find, just maybe, that in the next hundred years we actually advanced further and faster than the last thousand, but that is just my perspective.

I apologize for the walls of text and any possible derailing of your thread, but something in me just felt called to say these things and give these ideas and words a voice. It is a good thought provoking thread though, XenoFish and for that I say thanks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.